The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e
Original Article
The authors’ affiliations are listed in the
Appendix. Address reprint requests to
Dr. Pittas at the Division of Endocrinolo‑
gy, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Tufts
Medical Center, 800 Washington St., Box
268, Boston, MA 02111, or at ­apittas@​
­tuftsmedicalcenter​.­org.
*Deceased.
†A list of the members of the D2d Research
Group is provided in the Supplementary
Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
This article was published on June 7, 2019,
and updated on July 18, 2019, at NEJM.org.
N Engl J Med 2019;381:520-30.
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1900906
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.
520
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention
of Type 2 Diabetes
Anastassios G. Pittas, M.D., Bess Dawson‑Hughes, M.D.,
Patricia Sheehan, R.N., M.P.H., M.S., James H. Ware, Ph.D.,*
William C. Knowler, M.D., Dr.P.H., Vanita R. Aroda, M.D., Irwin Brodsky, M.D.,
Lisa Ceglia, M.D., Chhavi Chadha, M.D., Ranee Chatterjee, M.D., M.P.H.,
Cyrus Desouza, M.B., B.S., Rowena Dolor, M.D., John Foreyt, Ph.D.,
Paul Fuss, B.A., Adline Ghazi, M.D., Daniel S. Hsia, M.D.,
Karen C. Johnson, M.D., M.P.H., Sangeeta R. Kashyap, M.D., Sun Kim, M.D.,
Erin S. LeBlanc, M.D., M.P.H., Michael R. Lewis, M.D., Emilia Liao, M.D.,
Lisa M. Neff, M.D., Jason Nelson, M.P.H., Patrick O’Neil, Ph.D., Jean Park, M.D.,
Anne Peters, M.D., Lawrence S. Phillips, M.D., Richard Pratley, M.D.,
Philip Raskin, M.D., Neda Rasouli, M.D., David Robbins, M.D.,
Clifford Rosen, M.D., Ellen M. Vickery, M.S., and Myrlene Staten, M.D.,
for the D2d Research Group†​​
A BS T R AC T
BACKGROUND
Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin
D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation
lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown.
METHODS
We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for pre-
diabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose
level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated
hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU
per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin
D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes,
and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508.
RESULTS
A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and
1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in
the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline),
as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter
at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes oc-
curred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39
and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as
compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The
incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insuffi-
ciency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a
significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number,
NCT01942694.)
n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes
M
ore than 84 million adults in
the United States have an increased risk
of type 2 diabetes, based on a fasting
glucose or glycated hemoglobin level above the
normal range but below the threshold for diabe-
tes.1 Persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes who
are overweight or obese and who have elevated
fasting glucose levels and glucose intolerance
(according to a 75-g oral glucose-tolerance test)
can slow progression to diabetes with lifestyle
changes.2 However, achieving and maintaining
sufficient lifestyle change is challenging, and the
residual risk of diabetes remains elevated, even
after successful weight loss.
Over the past decade, a low blood 25-hydroxy­
vitamin D level has emerged as a possible risk
factor for type 2 diabetes, and vitamin D supple-
mentation has been proposed as a potential in-
tervention to lower diabetes risk.3,4 The hypothe­
sis that vitamin D status may influence the risk
of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, be-
cause both impaired pancreatic beta-cell func-
tion and insulin resistance have been reported
with low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.5 Ob-
servational studies support an association be-
tween a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and
the risk of diabetes.6 In short-term mechanistic
studies, vitamin D supplementation improved
the disposition index, a measure of pancreatic
beta-cell function, by 40%.7 However, whether
vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of
diabetes is unclear.8-10 The Vitamin D and Type 2
Diabetes (D2d) trial was conducted to test
whether vitamin D supplementation reduces the
risk of type 2 diabetes among adults at high risk
for the disorder.
Me thods
Trial Design
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled
clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of
oral administration of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol;
4000 IU per day) for diabetes prevention in
adults at high risk for type 2 diabetes.11 The
trial protocol (available with the full text of this
article at NEJM.org) was designed by the plan-
ning committee and the primary sponsor (Na-
tional Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases) without input from manufac-
turers11 and involved collaboration among 22
academic medical centers in the United States
(https://d2dstudy.org/sites). A sponsor-appointed
n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
data and safety monitoring board approved the
protocol and provided independent monitoring
of the trial. The institutional review board at
each clinical site also approved the protocol, and
all the participants provided written informed
consent. The data were collected by trial-site
personnel and stored in an electronic data-cap-
ture database. The statistical team at the coordi-
nating center analyzed the data and vouches for
its accuracy. All the authors vouch for the accu-
racy and completeness of the data and for the
fidelity of the trial to the protocol. They also
contributed to the interpretation of the results
and the preparation, review, and approval of the
manuscript and made the decision to submit the
manuscript for publication.
No pharmaceutical manufacturers contributed
to the planning, design, or conduct of the trial.
Trial pills were purchased from an independent
nutritional-supplement manufacturing company
that has no association with any members of the
D2d Research Group.
Participants
Participants met at least two of three glycemic
criteria for prediabetes as defined by the 2010
American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines:
fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per
deciliter (5.6 to 6.9 mmol per liter); plasma glu-
cose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load,
140 to 199 mg per deciliter (7.8 to 11.0 mmol per
liter); and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%
(39 to 47 mmol per mole).12 Other inclusion cri-
teria were an age of 30 years or older (25 years
or older for American Indians, Alaska Natives,
or Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders)
and a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilo-
grams divided by the square of the height in
meters) of 24 to 42 (22.5 to 42 for Asian Ameri-
cans). A low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level
was not an inclusion criterion.
Key exclusion criteria were any glycemic crite-
rion in the diabetes range,12 factors (other than
hyperglycemia and race) affecting the glycated
hemoglobin level, use of diabetes or weight-loss
medications, or use of supplements containing
vitamin D at a dose of more than 1000 IU per
day or calcium at a dose of more than 600 mg
per day. For a complete list of eligibility criteria,
see the Supplementary Appendix (available at
NEJM.org). The recruitment process relied pri-
marily on electronic-health-record identification
of potentially eligible adults who were then
521
 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e

screened in person and, if qualified, had a sec- old, confirmatory testing was performed for the
ond screening visit to determine final eligibility positive measure within 8 weeks. If only the
according to measured fasting plasma glucose, measure for 2-hour post-load plasma glucose
2-hour post-load plasma glucose, and glycated met the threshold, then a 75-g oral glucose-toler-
hemoglobin at the central laboratory of the trial.13 ance test to reassess all three glycemic measures
was repeated. If the repeat measure was positive
Intervention and Procedures or both fasting plasma glucose and glycated
Participants were randomly assigned to take a hemoglobin were positive (in the case of a repeat
single, once-daily soft-gel pill containing either oral glucose-tolerance test), then the participant
4000 IU of vitamin D3 or matching placebo. was considered to have met the diabetes out-
Randomization was block-stratified according come. A diagnosis of diabetes that was made
to trial site, BMI (<30 or ≥30), and race (white outside the trial was validated by in-trial labora-
or nonwhite). Participants received a bottle of tory testing or adjudicated by an independent
trial pills at the time of randomization and every clinical-outcomes committee.
6 months thereafter. Bottles with unused pills During the trial, research staff, caregivers,
were returned at each visit to estimate adherence. and participants were unaware of glycemic test
To maximize the ability of the trial to observe results until a participant met the diabetes out-
a treatment effect, participants were asked to come. Safety was assessed by means of partici-
refrain from using diabetes-specific or weight- pant report and annual fasting measurements of
loss medications during the trial and to limit the serum calcium, serum creatinine, and morning
use of outside-of-trial vitamin D to 1000 IU per spot urine calcium:creatinine ratio (a rough esti-
day from all supplements, including multivita- mate of urine calcium excretion).14
mins. Because of concern that high intake of
calcium from supplements may be associated Laboratory Testing
with adverse outcomes, participants were asked Serum calcium and creatinine were analyzed lo-
to limit calcium supplements to 600 mg per day. cally at each site, and the estimated glomerular
During the trial, participants were provided with filtration rate was calculated.15 Other blood and
information on diabetes prevention through infor-urine specimens were processed locally and
mation sheets and twice-yearly group meetings. shipped to the central laboratory. Glycated
Follow-up visits occurred at month 3, month 6,­hemoglobin was measured with the use of an
and twice per year thereafter. Midway between ion-exchange high-performance liquid chroma-
the in-person visits, an interim contact (tele- tography method certified by the National Glyco-
phone or email) took place. All visits and con- hemoglobin Standardization Program.16 Plasma
tacts were designed to promote retention, encour-glucose was measured with the use of a hexoki-
age adherence to the trial regimen, and assess nase method. Stored serum samples from the
for diabetes, occurrence of adverse events, and baseline, month 12, and month 24 visits were
use of high-dose vitamin D supplements, diabe- used to measure 25-hydroxyvitamin D by liquid
tes medications, and weight-loss medications. chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry vali-
dated by a quarterly proficiency-testing program
Outcomes administered by the Vitamin D External Quality
The primary outcome in this time-to-event analy- Assessment Scheme.17,18
sis was new-onset diabetes, based on annual
glycemic testing of fasting plasma glucose, gly- Statistical Analysis
cated hemoglobin, and 2-hour post-load plasma The trial was designed as an event-driven trial
glucose and semiannual testing of fasting plas- with a target of 508 diabetes events and a total
ma glucose and glycated hemoglobin. If two or sample size of 2382 participants assigned equal-
three of the glycemic measures met the 2010 ly to the vitamin D group and placebo group, on
ADA thresholds for diabetes,12 the participant the basis of a hypothesized hazard ratio of 0.75
was considered to have met the diabetes out- in the vitamin D group, an incidence of diabetes
come. When only the measure for fasting plasma of 10% per year in the placebo group, a type I
glucose or glycated hemoglobin met the thresh- error rate of 0.0501 (with a single interim analy-

522 n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019

The New England Journal of Medicine

Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes
sis taken into account), a power of 90%, a re-
cruitment period of 2 years, a trial duration of
4 years, and a withdrawal rate of 5% per year
of follow-up.19
Intention-to-treat analyses compared groups
defined by the randomization procedure and in-
cluded all participants irrespective of adherence
to the assigned intervention or to the protocol
(e.g., use of diabetes or weight-loss medications).
Follow-up time for all analyses was calculated as
the time from randomization until the occur-
rence of the primary outcome, death, withdrawal,
or last follow-up encounter free from diabetes.
No imputation was performed for missing data,
but we conducted a sensitivity analysis to assess
for noninformative censoring of incomplete data
(see the Supplementary Appendix).
Because the use of a diabetes-specific medi-
cation would be considered a “competing event”
for the primary outcome, we prespecified a sen-
sitivity analysis in which the primary outcome
was the time to new-onset diabetes according to
trial criteria or use of a diabetes-specific medica-
tion. As planned in the protocol, we conducted an
exploratory per-protocol analysis that censored
follow-up data when a participant stopped the
trial pills, started a diabetes or weight-loss medi-
cation, or took out-of-trial vitamin D from sup-
plements above the trial limit of 1000 IU per day.
The protocol specified that this event-driven
trial would continue until the required number
of diabetes events (508) was reached. A pre-
specified interim analysis for the data and safety
monitoring board to examine harm or superior
efficacy with the use of a Haybittle–Peto bound-
ary20 was conducted when approximately 70% of
the required events (364 of 508) had accrued,
and the data and safety monitoring board rec-
ommended that the trial proceed to its planned
conclusion. Because the efficiency of event-driven
trials is increased by stopping when the required
number of events is achieved,21 we conducted
blinded monitoring of event count and speci-
fied that when the trial was within approximately
2 months of reaching 508 events, the subsequent
scheduled follow-up visit for each participant
would be considered the last visit. All events that
occurred during the trial, including those that oc-
curred after the target of 508 events was reached,
were used to generate the primary results.
Kaplan–Meier estimates were plotted for each
n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
group. Cox proportional-hazards models were
used to calculate the hazard ratio for new-onset
diabetes between the two groups.22 The model
included group assignment as its main predictor
variable and the stratification variables (trial site,
BMI, and race). We also show a model without
the stratification variables. Comparisons between
the two groups at baseline and with respect to the
rate of withdrawal, discontinuation of trial pills,
use of diabetes or weight-loss medications, and
supplemental intake above the trial limit used
Fisher’s exact test, the chi-square test, the Wil-
coxon rank-sum test, or the pooled-variance
t‑test.
Variability of response to vitamin D supple-
mentation was assessed in prespecified subgroups
defined by key baseline variables. Rates of ad-
verse events were compared between the two
groups. When evaluating the significance of the
prespecified subgroup analyses, we used the
Hochberg sequential procedure to adjust for mul-
tiple comparisons, if necessary. No adjustments
were made for the safety analyses or the planned
exploratory or post hoc analyses for the primary
outcome; therefore, only point estimates and
95% confidence intervals are presented without
P values.
R e sult s
Participants
From October 2013 through February 2017, a to-
tal of 7133 persons were screened (Fig. 1), and
2423 were randomly assigned to receive vitamin D
(1211 participants) or placebo (1212 participants);
these participants were included in the intention-
to-treat population (Table 1, and Table S1 in the
Supplementary Appendix). A total of 44.8% of
the participants were women, 33.3% were of non-
white race, and 9.3% were of Hispanic ethnic
background.24 The participants had a mean age
of 60.0 years, a mean BMI of 32.1, and a mean
glycated hemoglobin level of 5.9% (48 mmol per
mole). A total of 84.2% of the participants met
the glycemic criteria for both fasting plasma
glucose and glycated hemoglobin; approximately
one third met all three glycemic criteria.
The last trial encounter was in November 2018.
In the two groups, the median follow-up was 2.5
years (interquartile range, 1.9 to 3.5 [vitamin D]
and 1.7 to 3.5 [placebo]). Before reaching a pri-
523
 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
7133 Persons were assessed for eligibility
4710 Did not meet eligibility criteria
3850 Did not meet glycemic
criteria
106 Used supplements contain-
ing vitamin D at dose of
>1000 IU/day or calcium
at dose of >600 mg/day
159 Had abnormal laboratory
result
223 Withdrew consent or were
not interested
372 Had other reason
2423 Underwent randomization
1211 Were assigned to receive 1212 Were assigned to receive
4000 IU of vitamin D daily placebo daily
1211 Received vitamin D 1211 Received placebo
3 Had no contact after randomi- 5 Had no contact after randomi-
zation zation
5 Died 5 Died
34 Withdrew 28 Withdrew
1 Was withdrawn administratively 108 Discontinued trial pills
137 Discontinued trial pills 24 Had protocol-specified adverse
27 Had protocol-specified adverse event
event 13 Had other adverse event
20 Had other adverse event 66 Chose to discontinue
86 Chose to discontinue 5 Had other reason
4 Had other reason
1201 Completed ≥1 follow-up 1199 Completed ≥1 follow-up
encounter encounter
1131 Met primary outcome, died, or 1130 Met primary outcome, died, or
completed last follow-up encounter completed last follow-up encounter
1211 Were included in the intention- 1212 Were included in the intention-
to-treat analysis to-treat analysis
Figure 1. Screening, Randomization, and Follow-up.
One participant in the vitamin D group was withdrawn administratively after
a clinical site closed down early in the trial. Protocol-specified adverse events
that led to discontinuation of the trial pills were hypercalcemia, a fasting
urine calcium:creatinine ratio of more than 0.375, a low estimated glomerular
filtration rate, and nephrolithiasis. Of the 2423 participants who underwent
randomization, 14 (9 in the vitamin D group and 5 in the placebo group)
were subsequently found not to meet all eligibility criteria.
524 n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019
The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
of m e dic i n e
mary outcome event, 10 participants (5 in each
group) died, and 62 (34 in the vitamin D group
and 28 in the placebo group) withdrew consent
(Fig. 1). In total, 99.1% of the cohort (1201 par-
ticipants in the vitamin D group and 1199 in
the placebo group) contributed follow-up data,
through either a visit that included central-labo-
ratory testing or a nonvisit encounter to capture
a diagnosis of diabetes outside the trial.
The mean baseline level of serum 25-hydroxy­
vitamin D was 28.0 ng per milliliter (69.9 nmol
per liter), with no significant difference between
the two groups; 78.3% of the participants had a
level equal to or greater than 20 ng per milliliter
(50 nmol per liter) (Table 1). The mean 25-hydroxy­
vitamin D levels in the vitamin D group at
month 12 (52.3 ng per milliliter [130.5 nmol
per liter]) and month 24 (54.3 ng per milliliter
[135.5 nmol per liter]) were higher than those
in the placebo group (28.1 ng per milliliter
[70.1 nmol per liter] and 28.8 ng per milliliter
[71.9 nmol per liter], respectively) (Fig. S1 in the
Supplementary Appendix).
Primary Outcome
By the end of the trial, diabetes had developed
in 616 patients. New-onset diabetes (the primary
outcome) occurred in 293 participants (273 cases
diagnosed by trial-specific laboratory testing and
20 diagnosed by adjudication) in the vitamin D
group and 323 patients (305 cases diagnosed by
trial-specific laboratory testing and 18 diagnosed
by adjudication) in the placebo group (9.39 events
and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respec-
tively). The hazard ratio in the vitamin D group
was 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to
1.04; P = 0.12) (Fig. 2). When the stratification
variables were not included in the model, the
hazard ratio in the vitamin D group was 0.87
(95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02). In a sensitivity analysis to
account for missing data, the hazard ratio did
not change substantially (see the Supplementary
Appendix).
In the sensitivity analysis in which diabetes
was defined as new-onset diabetes according to
trial criteria or the use of a diabetes-specific
medication, the hazard ratio in the vitamin D
group was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.02). The re-
sults of the subgroup analyses were consistent
with the findings of the main analysis; there
was no apparent heterogeneity of treatment ef-
fect across the prespecified subgroups (Fig. 3).
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of the Participants.*

Overall Vitamin D Placebo

Characteristic (N = 2423) (N = 1211) (N = 1212)
Demographic
Age — yr 60.0±9.9 59.6±9.9 60.4±10.0
Female sex — no. (%) 1086 (44.8) 541 (44.7) 545 (45.0)
Race — no. (%)†
Asian 130 (5.4) 66 (5.5) 64 (5.3)
Black 616 (25.4) 301 (24.9) 315 (26.0)
White 1616 (66.7) 810 (66.9) 806 (66.5)
Other 61 (2.5) 34 (2.8) 27 (2.2)
Hispanic or Latino ethnic group — no. (%)† 225 (9.3) 120 (9.9) 105 (8.7)
Body-mass index 32.1±4.5 32.0±4.5 32.1±4.4
Laboratory assessments
Fasting plasma glucose — mg/dl 107.9±7.4 108.0±7.4 107.8±7.4
2-Hr post-load plasma glucose — mg/dl 137.2±34.3 136.9±34.3 137.6±34.3
Glycated hemoglobin — % 5.9±0.2 5.9±0.2 5.9±0.2
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
Mean — ng/ml 28.0±10.2 27.7±10.2 28.2±10.1
Distribution — no./total no. (%)‡
<12 ng/ml 103/2422 (4.3) 60/1211 (5.0) 43/1211 (3.6)
12–19 ng/ml 422/2422 (17.4) 216/1211 (17.8) 206/1211 (17.0)
20–29 ng/ml 876/2422 (36.2) 453/1211 (37.4) 423/1211 (34.9)
≥30 ng/ml 1021/2422 (42.2) 482/1211 (39.8) 539/1211 (44.5)

* Plus–minus values are means ±SD. Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. To convert the values for glu‑
cose to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.05551. To convert the values for 25-hydroxyvitamin D to nanomoles per liter,
multiply by 2.496.
† Race and ethnic group were reported by the participant. The category “other” includes American Indian or Alaska
Native; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; and other race. Ethnic group includes any race.
‡ Categories of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D are based on the 2010 Dietary Reference Intakes for calcium and vitamin D
recommended by the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine.23

In a post hoc analysis of data from participants
with a baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less
than 12 ng per milliliter (30 nmol per liter) (103
participants), the hazard ratio in the vitamin D
group was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.80). Among
those with a baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D level
equal to or greater than 12 ng per milliliter
(2319 participants), the hazard ratio in the vita-
min D group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.08).
Adherence
A total of 170 participants (14.0%) in the vita-
min D group and 172 (14.2%) in the placebo
group stopped trial pills, took diabetes or weight-
loss medications, or took outside-of-trial vita-
min D supplements above the trial limit before
the diagnosis of diabetes. During the trial, more
participants in the placebo group than in the
vitamin D group started diabetes or weight-loss
medications (Fig. S2 in the Supplementary Ap-
pendix). Although overall adherence to the trial
regimen was high (85.8% of prescribed pills
were taken), more participants in the vitamin D
group (11.3%) than in the placebo group (8.9%)
stopped trial pills (difference, 2.4 percentage
points; 95% CI, 0.0 to 4.8) (Fig. S3 in the Sup-
plementary Appendix). During follow-up, more
participants in the placebo group (5.2%) than in
the vitamin D group (2.6%) reported use of
outside-of-trial vitamin D supplements above the

n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019 525

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e

nephrolithiasis (Table 2). Overall, 47 participants

1.0 (3.9%) in the vitamin D group stopped the trial
0.9
pills because of an adverse event, as compared
with 37 (3.1%) in the placebo group (difference,
0.8 0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.7 to 2.3).
Probability of Diabetes-free Survival

Vitamin D
0.7 Placebo
Discussion
0.6
In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-con-
0.5
trolled trial involving persons at high risk for
0.4 type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insuf-
ficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of
0.3
4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly
0.2 lower risk of diabetes than placebo after a me-
dian follow-up of 2.5 years.
0.1 Hazard ratio for diabetes, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.75–1.04)
P=0.12
While our trial was being conducted, two
0.0 other trials that were designed to test whether
0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of
Months since Randomization type 2 diabetes among persons at risk showed
No. at Risk hazard ratios with vitamin D that were similar
Vitamin D 1211 1171 1089 1001 812 625 466 283 141 21 to those in our trial.25,26 In the Tromsø Vitamin D
Placebo 1212 1171 1091 975 779 577 419 258 121 13
and T2DM Trial (Norway), which randomly as-
Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Curves for Survival Free from Diabetes among Adults signed 511 white adults with prediabetes to
at Risk for Type 2 Diabetes. 20,000 IU per week (approximately 2900 IU per
The hazard ratio for new-onset diabetes between the vitamin D group and day) of vitamin D3 or placebo, the risk of diabe-
the placebo group is derived from Cox regression, with stratification accord‑ tes was numerically lower in the vitamin D group
ing to trial site, body-mass index, and race. than in the placebo group, but the difference
was not significant (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI,
0.69 to 1.18).25 In the Diabetes Prevention with
trial limit of 1000 IU per day (difference, 2.6 Active Vitamin D study (Japan), which randomly
percentage points; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.2) (Fig. S2 in assigned 1256 adults with prediabetes to an ac-
the Supplementary Appendix). There was no sig- tive form of vitamin D analogue (eldecalcitol)
nificant difference between the two groups in the or placebo, the risk of diabetes was also lower
use of outside-of-trial calcium supplements above in the vitamin D group than in the placebo
the trial limit. group, but the difference was again not signifi-
In the exploratory per-protocol analysis that cant (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.09).27
censored follow-up data when a participant start- We powered our trial to detect a 25% lower risk
ed a diabetes or weight-loss medication, stopped of diabetes with vitamin D than with placebo.
the trial pills, or took out-of-trial vitamin D from On the basis of the results from all three trials,
supplements above the trial limit of 1000 IU per vitamin D supplementation may decrease diabe-
day, the primary outcome occurred in 265 par- tes risk among persons at risk for diabetes not
ticipants (21.9%) in the vitamin D group and selected for vitamin D insufficiency by a smaller
304 (25.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, effect size (10 to 15%), but none of these trials
0.84; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.00). were powered to test this effect size.
Our trial has several strengths. We used con-
Safety temporary glycemic criteria to assemble a diverse
There were no significant between-group dif- cohort at high risk for diabetes with a hypergly-
ferences in the protocol-specified adverse cemic pattern closely matching how prediabetes
events of interest: hypercalcemia, a fasting urine is diagnosed in clinical practice, most commonly
calcium:creatinine ratio of more than 0.375, a with fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemo-
low estimated glomerular filtration rate, and globin. The vitamin D dose of 4000 IU per day

526 n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019

The New England Journal of Medicine

Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes

Subgroup Vitamin D Placebo Hazard Ratio for Diabetes

no. of events/no. of participants (95% CI)
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
<20 ng/ml 73/276 66/249 0.87 (0.61–1.22)
≥20 ng/ml 220/935 256/962 0.89 (0.74–1.06)
Race
White 207/810 227/806 0.90 (0.75–1.09)
Black 64/301 69/315 0.83 (0.58–1.18)
Other 22/100 27/91 0.86 (0.48–1.56)
Glycemic criteria for prediabetes
Met all three criteria 143/427 163/429 0.86 (0.68–1.09)
Met two criteria 150/784 160/783 0.90 (0.72–1.13)
Body–mass index
<30 82/435 105/429 0.71 (0.53–0.95)
≥30 211/776 218/783 0.97 (0.80–1.17)
Impaired glucose tolerance
Yes 191/604 215/635 0.92 (0.75–1.12)
No 102/607 108/577 0.86 (0.65–1.13)
Ethnic group
Hispanic 36/120 27/105 1.14 (0.68–1.92)
Non–Hispanic 257/1091 296/1107 0.86 (0.72–1.02)
Sex
Female 131/541 127/545 0.98 (0.77–1.26)
Male 162/670 196/667 0.82 (0.66–1.01)
Waist circumference
<Median of 104.2 cm 127/620 135/585 0.82 (0.64–1.05)
≥Median of 104.2 cm 166/591 188/627 0.95 (0.76–1.17)
Age
<Median of 60.9 yr 158/622 153/587 0.97 (0.77–1.21)
≥Median of 60.9 yr 135/589 170/625 0.80 (0.64–1.01)
Geographic location
At or above 37° north latitude 205/892 235/898 0.85 (0.70–1.03)
Below 37° north latitude 88/319 88/314 0.97 (0.72–1.32)
Calcium intake from supplements
No intake 198/826 216/793 0.81 (0.66–0.98)
Any intake 95/385 107/419 1.05 (0.79–1.40)
0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Vitamin D Better Placebo Better

Figure 3. Prespecified Subgroup Analyses.

Participants met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes: fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter (5.6 to
6.9 mmol per liter); plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter (7.8 to 11.0 mmol per liter)
(impaired glucose tolerance); and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4% (39 to 47 mmol per mole). To convert the values for 25-hydroxy­
vitamin D to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 2.496.

was selected to balance safety and efficacy and
resulted in a large difference in the serum
25-hydroxyvitamin D level between the trial
groups in the first 2 years of follow-up. In 94%
of cases, the primary outcome was ascertained
by trial-specific laboratory testing based on cur-
rent ADA criteria and required two tests in the
diabetes range for diagnosis. Our cohort was
recruited at a constant rate throughout the cal-
endar year, which reduced the potential of con-
founding by seasonal variability. Finally, the ob-
served rate of new-onset diabetes in the placebo
group (10.7 events per 100 person-years) was
consistent with our estimate of 10 events per 100
person-years.
Overall adherence was high, and overall use
of off-protocol concomitant therapies was low.
However, among nonadherent participants, more

n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019 527

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e

Incidence Rate Ratio for in the placebo group started diabetes or weight-

fasting morning urine calcium:creatinine ratio was measured by the central laboratory. A low estimated glomerular filtration rate was defined as a rate equal to or lower than 30 ml per
* Hypercalcemia was defined as a serum calcium level (uncorrected for albumin level) higher than the upper limit of the normal range for the clinical laboratory at each clinical site. The
Vitamin D vs. Placebo
loss medications and took outside-of-trial vita-

0.97 (0.06–15.52)

0.97 (0.28–3.35)
0.48 (0.04–5.36)
1.16 (0.65–2.07)
1.00 (0.83–1.20)
1.62 (0.39–6.77)
1.23 (0.80–1.90)
min D supplements above the trial limit, whereas
(95% CI)

more in the vitamin D group stopped the trial

pills for any reason. Whether these differences
among nonadherent participants shifted the risk
difference between the two groups toward or
away from null in the intention-to-treat or per-
protocol analysis is unknown.
with ≥1 Event
Participants

Response to a nutritional intervention de-

153
2
20
3
1
pends on nutritional status at baseline; thus, if
no.

vitamin D has an effect on diabetes prevention,

persons with a higher baseline level of serum
Placebo (N = 1212)

25-hydroxy­ vitamin D would be expected to

no./100 person-yr

have less effect from supplementation than those

with a lower baseline level.28 Owing to ethical
Event
Rate

7.52
0.17
0.03
0.07
0.69
1.22

0.10

and practical considerations, a lack of consen-

sus on the preferred 25-hydroxyvitamin D level,
minute per 1.73 m2 of body-surface area based on serum creatinine measured at the clinical laboratory at each clinical site.
and our desire to maximize the external valid-
ity of the trial, we specifically did not include
Events
No. of

228
5
2
21
37

3
1

serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D as an eligibility

criterion. Because vitamin D supplements are
used increasingly in the U.S. adult popula-
with ≥1 Event
Participants

tion,29 approximately 8 of 10 participants had a

173

baseline serum 25-hydroxy­vitamin D level that

1
24
5
1
no.

was considered to be sufficient according to

Vitamin D (N = 1211)

current recommendations (≥20 ng per milliliter)

to reduce the risk of many outcomes,23,30 includ-
no./100 person-yr

ing diabetes.6 The high percentage of partici-

pants with adequate levels of vitamin D may
Event
Rate

7.53
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.80
1.51

0.16

have limited the ability of the trial to detect a

significant effect.
The vitamin D dose of 4000 IU per day is the
recommended upper intake level to avert poten-
Events
No. of

235
5
1
25
1
47

tial toxicity,23 although data from large trials on

the safety on this dose have been scant. There is
concern that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels above
50 ng per milliliter (125 nmol per liter) may be
associated with adverse effects.23,30 In our trial,
Fasting urine calcium:creatinine ratio >0.375
Any adverse event leading to discontinuation of

vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU

Low estimated glomerular filtration rate
Table 2. Protocol-Specified Adverse Events.

per day resulted in no significant differences be-

tween the two groups in the protocol-specified
Nephrolithiasis, participant-reported

adverse events of interest (hypercalcemia, a fasting

Within-trial laboratory evaluation*

urine calcium:creatinine ratio of >0.375, a low

estimated glomerular filtration rate, and nephro-
lithiasis). The 24-hour urine calcium level was not
Serious adverse event
the trial pills

measured.31
Hypercalcemia

In conclusion, among persons at high risk for

type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insuf-
ficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of
Death
Event

4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly

lower risk of diabetes than placebo.

528 n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019

The New England Journal of Medicine

Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Insti-
tutes of Health.
A data sharing statement provided by the authors is available
with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
The planning phase of the D2d trial was funded by the Na-
tional Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
(NIDDK) through a multicenter clinical study implementation
planning grant to Tufts Medical Center in Boston (U34DK091958;
principal investigator, Dr. Pittas). Planning was also supported,
in part, by the Intramural Research Program of the NIDDK. The
conduct of the trial was supported primarily by the NIDDK and
the Office of Dietary Supplements of the National Institutes of
Health through the multicenter clinical study cooperative agree-
ment (U01DK098245; principal investigator, Dr. Pittas) to Tufts
Medical Center, where the D2d Coordinating Center is based.
The U01 grant mechanism establishes the NIDDK project scien-
tist (Dr. Staten) as a member of the D2d Research Group. The
trial also received secondary funding from the American Diabe-
tes Association to Tufts Medical Center (1-14-D2d-01; principal
investigator, Dr. Pittas). Educational materials were provided by
the National Diabetes Education Program.
Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports receiving grant support, paid to
Tufts University, from Pfizer and DSM and travel support from
Abiogen Pharma; Dr. Aroda, receiving consulting fees, paid to
her institution, from Adocia, grant support, paid to her institu-
tion, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers
Squibb, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, consulting fees from BD and
Zafgen, and grant support, paid to her institution, from Calibra
Medical, Eisai, Janssen, and Theracos; Dr. Ceglia, receiving
grant support from DSM; Dr. Desouza, receiving advisory board
fees from Novo Nordisk; Dr. Kim, receiving consulting fees
from Sanofi; Dr. LeBlanc, receiving grant support, paid to her
institution, from Merck; Dr. Neff, receiving grant support from
GI Dynamics; Dr. O’Neil, receiving grant support from Weight
Watchers International, advisory board fees from Janssen, advi-
sory board fees and fees for presentations from Vindico Medical
Education, fees for CME programs from WebMD, lecture fees
from Robard, and grant support and lecture fees from Novo
Nordisk; Dr. Phillips, receiving grant support and advisory
board fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, receiving advisory
board fees from Profil Institute for Clinical Research, receiving
grant support from Merck, Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly,
Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, PhaseBio, Roche, AbbVie, Vascular Phar-
maceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Kowa Research In-
stitute, and serving as cofounder, officer, and board member of
and holding stock in Diasyst; and Dr. Pratley, receiving lecture
fees, paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his in-
stitution, from AstraZeneca, consulting fees, paid to his institu-
tion, from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Gly-
tec, Janssen, Mundipharma, and Pfizer, grant support, paid to
his institution, from Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, grant support,
paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his institu-
tion, from Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, Merck, and Sanofi,
grant support, paid to his institution, and lecture fees, paid to
his institution, from Novo Nordisk and Takeda, and consulting
fees from Sanofi US Services. No other potential conflict of in-
terest relevant to this article was reported.
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with
the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
We thank the D2d investigators, staff, and trial participants
for their dedication and commitment to the trial.

Appendix
The authors’ affiliations are as follows: Tufts Medical Center (A.G.P., L.C., P.F., J.N., E.M.V.), the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition
Research Center on Aging at Tufts University (B.D.-H.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital (V.R.A.), and Harvard School of Public Health
(J.H.W.), Boston, and the Spaulding Rehabilitation Network, Charlestown (P.S.) — all in Massachusetts; National Institute of Diabetes
and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Phoenix, AZ (W.C.K.); the Maine Medical Center (I.B.) and the Maine Medical Center Research
Institute (C.R.) — both in Scarborough; HealthPartners Institute, Minneapolis (C.C.); Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
(R.C., R.D.); the University of Nebraska Medical Center and Omaha Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Omaha (C.D.); Baylor College of
Medicine, Houston (J.F.), and the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (P.R.) — both in Texas; MedStar Good Sa-
maritan Hospital, Baltimore (A.G.), MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville (J.P.), and the National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Bethesda (M.S.) — all in Maryland; Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA (D.S.H.);
the University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis (K.C.J.); Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland (S.R.K.); Stanford University Medical
Center, Stanford (S.K.), and the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles (A.P.) — both in Cali-
fornia; Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research–Northwest, Portland, OR (E.S.L.); the University of Vermont, Burlington (M.R.L.);
Northwell Health Lenox Hill Hospital, New York (E.L.); Northwestern University, Chicago (L.M.N.); the Medical University of South
Carolina, Charleston (P.O.); Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, and the Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur
— both in Georgia (L.S.P.); AdventHealth Translational Research Institute for Metabolism and Diabetes, Orlando, FL (R.P.); the Uni-
versity of Colorado Denver and the Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver (N.R.); and the University of Kansas
Medical Center, Kansas City (D.R.).

References
1. Centers for Disease Control and Preven-
tion. National diabetes statistics report,
2017 (https://www​.cdc​.gov/​diabetes/​pdfs/​
data/​statistics/​national​-­diabetes​-­statistics​
-­report​.pdf).
2. Knowler WC, Barrett-Connor E, Fowler
SE, et al. Reduction in the incidence of
type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention
or metformin. N Engl J Med 2002;​346:​
393-403.
3. Lu L, Bennett DA, Millwood IY, et al.
Association of vitamin D with risk of type 2
diabetes: a Mendelian randomisation study
in European and Chinese adults. PLoS Med
2018;​15(5):​e1002566.
4. Pittas AG, Lau J, Hu FB, Dawson-
Hughes B. The role of vitamin D and cal-
cium in type 2 diabetes: a systematic re-
view and meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 2007;​92:​2017-29.
5. Kayaniyil S, Vieth R, Retnakaran R,
et al. Association of vitamin D with insu-
lin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction in
subjects at risk for type 2 diabetes. Diabe-
tes Care 2010;​33:​1379-81.
6. Song Y, Wang L, Pittas AG, et al.
Blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels and
incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis
of prospective studies. Diabetes Care 2013;​
36:​1422-8.
7. Mitri J, Dawson-Hughes B, Hu FB, Pit-
tas AG. Effects of vitamin D and calcium
supplementation on pancreatic β cell func-
tion, insulin sensitivity, and glycemia in
adults at high risk of diabetes: the Calci-
um and Vitamin D for Diabetes Mellitus
(CaDDM) randomized controlled trial. Am
J Clin Nutr 2011;​94:​486-94.
8. Seida JC, Mitri J, Colmers IN, et al.
Effect of vitamin D3 supplementation on
improving glucose homeostasis and pre-
venting diabetes: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab
2014;​99:​3551-60.
9. Mirhosseini N, Vatanparast H, Mazidi

n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019 529

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
 Vitamin D and Prevention of Diabetes

M, Kimball SM. Vitamin D supplementa-
tion, glycemic control, and insulin resis-
tance in prediabetics: a meta-analysis.
J Endocr Soc 2018;​2:​687-709.
10. Tang H, Li D, Li Y, Zhang X, Song Y,
Li X. Effects of vitamin D supplementa-
tion on glucose and insulin homeostasis
and incident diabetes among nondiabetic
adults: a meta-analysis of randomized con-
trolled trials. Int J Endocrinol 2018;​2018:​
7908764.
11. Pittas AG, Dawson-Hughes B, Sheehan
PR, et al. Rationale and design of the Vita-
min D and Type 2 Diabetes (D2d) study:
a diabetes prevention trial. Diabetes Care
2014;​37:​3227-34.
12. American Diabetes Association. Stan-
dards of medical care in diabetes —
2010. Diabetes Care 2010;​33:​Suppl 1:​S11-
S61.
13. Aroda VR, Sheehan PR, Vickery EM,
et al. Establishing an electronic health
record-supported approach for outreach
to and recruitment of persons at high
risk of type 2 diabetes in clinical trials:
the Vitamin D and Type 2 diabetes (D2d)
study experience. Clin Trials 2019;​ 16:​
308-15.
14. Gökçe C, Gökçe O, Baydinç C, et al.
Use of random urine samples to estimate
total urinary calcium and phosphate ex-
cretion. Arch Intern Med 1991;​151:​1587-8.
15. Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor
BC, et al. Association of estimated glo-
merular filtration rate and albuminuria
with all-cause and cardiovascular mortal-
ity in general population cohorts: a col-
laborative meta-analysis. Lancet 2010;​375:​
2073-81.
16. Forrest RD, Jackson CA, Yudkin JS.
The glycohaemoglobin assay as a screen-
ing test for diabetes mellitus: the Islington
Diabetes Survey. Diabet Med 1987;​4:​254-9.
17. Bedner M, Lippa KA, Tai SS. An assess-
ment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D measure-
ments in comparability studies conducted
by the Vitamin D Metabolites Quality As-
surance Program. Clin Chim Acta 2013;​
426:​6-11.
18. DEQAS (Vitamin D External Quality As-
sessment Scheme) (http://www​.deqas​.org).
19. Schoenfeld DA. Sample-size formula
for the proportional-hazards regression
model. Biometrics 1983;​39:​499-503.
20. Haybittle JL. Repeated assessment of
results in clinical trials of cancer treat-
ment. Br J Radiol 1971;​44:​793-7.
21. Lachin JM. Maximum information de-
signs. Clin Trials 2005;​2:​453-64.
22. Cox DR. Regression models and life
tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972;​34:​187-220.
23. Institute of Medicine. Dietary refer-
ence intakes for calcium and vitamin D.
Washington, DC:​National Academies
Press, 2011.
24. LeBlanc ES, Pratley RE, Dawson-
Hughes B, et al. Baseline characteristics
of the Vitamin D and Type 2 Diabetes
(D2d) study: a contemporary prediabetes
cohort that will inform diabetes preven-
tion efforts. Diabetes Care 2018;​41:​1590-9.
25. Jorde R, Sollid ST, Svartberg J, et al.
Vitamin D 20,000 IU per week for five
years does not prevent progression from
prediabetes to diabetes. J Clin Endocrinol
Metab 2016;​101:​1647-55.
26. Kawahara T, Suzuki G, Inazu T, et al.
Rationale and design of Diabetes Preven-
tion with active Vitamin D (DPVD): a ran-
domised, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study. BMJ Open 2016;​6(7):​e011183.
27. Kawahara T. Eldecalcitol, a vitamin D
analog, for diabetes prevention in im-
paired glucose tolerance (DPVD study).
Diabetes 2018;​67:​Suppl 1 (poster) (http://
diabetes​.diabetesjournals​.org/​content/​67/​
Supplement_1/​120​-­LB).
28. Grant WB, Boucher BJ, Bhattoa HP,
Lahore H. Why vitamin D clinical trials
should be based on 25-hydroxyvitamin D
concentrations. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol
2018;​177:​266-9.
29. Rooney MR, Harnack L, Michos ED,
Ogilvie RP, Sempos CT, Lutsey PL. Trends
in use of high-dose vitamin D supple-
ments exceeding 1000 or 4000 interna-
tional units daily, 1999-2014. JAMA 2017;​
317:​2448-50.
30. National Institutes of Health. Vitamin D:
fact sheet for health professionals (https://
ods​.od​.nih​.gov/​factsheets/​VitaminD​
-­HealthProfessional/​).
31. Jones AN, Shafer MM, Keuler NS,
Crone EM, Hansen KE. Fasting and post-
prandial spot urine calcium-to-creatinine
ratios do not detect hypercalciuria. Osteo-
poros Int 2012;​23:​553-62.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.

530 n engl j med 381;6 nejm.org  August 8, 2019

The New England Journal of Medicine

Downloaded from nejm.org at UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE SAN LUIS POTOSI UASLP on August 12, 2019. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.